Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 19829 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
19-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
E
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Judgement Text
"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “Friday-E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 359, 360, 361, 362 & 363/DEL/2023 (IN ITA NOS. 1027, 1028, 1014, 1015 & 1016/Del/2022 Asstt. Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-018, 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Medsave Health Insurance TPA Limited, vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan F-701A, Lado Sarai, Sector-3, Vaishali, New Delhi – 30 Ghaziabad UP (PAN: AABCS8148M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.C. Sharma, Adv. & Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 21.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP These captioned Misc. Applications arise from the common appellate order of the Tribunal dated 29.03.2023 passed in ITA Nos. 1027, 1028, 1014, 1015 & 1016/Del/2022 relating to Asstt. Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively, the assessee has filed the present misc. applications for recalling of the common ex-parte order under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 r.w. Section 254 (2) of the Act. Since common order has been passed in the aforesaid assessee’s Appeals, hence, the present misc. applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts of the Misc. 2 Application no. 359/Del/2023 (in ITA No. 1027/Del/2022) being the lead case and the decision thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other remaining four misc. applications. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the averments made in the instant misc. application wherein, it has been stated that ITAT has passed the exparte order in the aforesaid appeals. It was further stated that the Assessee-company is in the business of Third Party Administration of insurance claims on behalf of insurance companies, both public and private sector. The company has two working directors namely Dr. Adish Labru and Shri Naresh Kumar Sureka. Dr. Adish Labru takes care of all matters relating to the medical profession internally and vis-à-vis insurance companies, hospitals etc. It was the further contention that Shri Naresh Kumar Sureka, working director was taking care of the day to day commercial affairs of the company including direct and indirect taxes. He suddenly stopped attending office / duty since 12th December 2022 till his resignation on 19.5.2023, a copy of Form DIR-12 filed with Ministry of Corporate Affairs informing them about his resignation w.e.f. 19.5.2023, has been placed on record. This has created a void in the working of the company as Dr. Adish Labru was unable to handle the commercial matters alongwith his own assigned duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the various notices sent to the assessee-company remained unattended due to the prolonged absence of Shri Naresh Sureka. In this regard, an Affidavit of Shri Naresh Sureka for his prolonged absence has been placed on record. Hence, it was submitted that since sufficient cause for non-attendance as above has been attributed, hence, the aforesaid appeals may be recalled. In support of aforesaid contentions, Ld. AR has relied upon the following case laws:- 3 i) Kerala Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2020 SCC online Del 2677) dated 11.12.2020 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) dated 19.2.1987 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. iii) Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACOT (2018 SCC online ITAT 18591) dated 17.9.2018 passed by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Ahmedabad. iv) Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019 SCC Online ITAT 6240) dated 29.3.2019 passed by ITAT ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai. v) Shri Nati Lal Gupta vs. ITO [2012 SCC online ITAT 14849) dated 21.12.2012 passed by ITAT, Bench ‘F’, New Delhi. 3. In the light of the submissions made it was urged for recalling of common appellate order dated 29.03.2023 of the Tribunal under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the common order of the Tribunal dated 29.3.2023 which has been passed in accordance with law, hence, the same need not be restored. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the captioned application has been filed by the applicant in terms of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, which provides for recall of appeal heard ex-parte by the Tribunal. The said Rule reads as under: “Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant. 24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal 4 may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.” 5.1 We note that the aforesaid Rule 24 of the Rule does not lay down any time limit for recall of ex-parte order by the Tribunal. The solitary condition laid down in the Rule is satisfactory explanation as to sufficient cause/reason for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. The reasons set out on behalf of the assessee in justification of recall of ex-parte order are clearly bona fide. As stated, Shri Naresh Kumar Sureka, working director was taking care of the day to day commercial affairs of the company including direct and indirect taxes and he suddenly stopped attending office / duty since 12th December 2022 till his resignation on 19.5.2023, which is evidencing from a copy of Form DIR-12 filed with Ministry of Corporate Affairs informing them about his resignation w.e.f. 19.5.2023and as a result thereof the another Director Dr. Adish Labru was unable to handle the commercial matters alongwith his own assigned duties and responsibilities. Therefore, various notices sent to the assessee-company remained unattended due to the prolonged absence of Shri Naresh Sureka, which is supported by an affidavit. The said affidavit is reproduced as under:- 5 6 5.2 In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered and in the interest of justice, sufficient cause for non-attendance as above has been attributed, hence, the aforesaid appeals deserve to be recalled. The affidavit as well as legal contentions for recalling of ex-parte order also supports the case of the assessee. Hence, we find merit in the plea of the assessee for recalling of the ex-parte order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.1027/Del/2022 & Ors. (AY 2013-14) dated 29.03.2023 and accordingly, direct the Registry to fix the appeal for fresh hearing in due course. In the result, the misc. application no. 1027/Del/2022 (AY 2013-14) stands allowed in the aforesaid manner. 5.3 Our aforesaid decision will apply mutatis mutandis to other remaining misc. applications. Therefore, the other misc. applications are also allowed. 6. In the result, all the captioned Misc. Applications filed by the assessee are allowed in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced on 19.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches "
AI Insights
The case involves M/s Medsave Health Insurance TPA Limited, which filed Miscellaneous Applications against a common appellate order concerning multiple assessment years. The applications were based on the grounds that the company was unable to attend the original hearings due to the sudden absence and resignation of its director responsible for handling commercial matters, including tax affairs. The Tribunal considered the affidavit and supporting documents provided, which detailed the director's absence and the impact on the company's operations, leading to unattended notices and non-appearance at the hearings. The Tribunal found the reasons for non-appearance to be bona fide and justified the recall of the ex-parte order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
